This Checklist sets out practical steps that an employer should consider taking where a design consultant engaged by the employer becomes insolvent during a construction project. This Checklist assumes that the employer has entered into a written appointment with a design consultant for services which are not yet complete. It assumes that it is not a PFI project. The actions to be taken in any specific situation will of course depend on the terms of the contract(s) between the parties and the stage of the project at the time of the consultant's insolvency, but this Checklist is intended to provide a starting point for the employer to consider. This Checklist looks at the issue from the perspective of an employer that has engaged a consultant where the procurement route is traditional, or where the procurement route will be design and build but novation of the consultant’s appointment has not yet taken place. Where a contractor engaged under a design and build contract has responsibility for the design of the project and the consultant’s

This Checklist sets out a number of practical steps that an employer should consider taking where a sub-contractor engaged by main contractor becomes insolvent during a construction project. This Checklist assumes that the employer has entered into a written contract with a main contractor for construction works which are not yet complete (and that the employer still wants to complete the works), and that the contractor has also entered into a written contract with the relevant sub-contractor. It assumes that it is not a PFI project. The actions to be taken in any specific situation will of course depend on the terms of the contract(s) between the parties and the status of the works at the time of the sub-contractor’s insolvency, but this Checklist is intended to provide a starting point for the employer if such circumstances occur. For guidance on how to spot potential problems with solvency and how to protect the employer’s position at the outset of a project, see Practice Note: Construction insolvency—how to spot problems and how to protect yourself—employers. The

Pensions analysis: The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that while the Pensions Regulator (‘tPR’) had posted compliance and penalty notices to Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Ltd (‘the Company’), the Company had successfully rebutted the presumption that compliance and penalty notices had been delivered. The notices and penalties, the latter of which amounted to almost £15,000, were therefore set aside. In this case, detailed evidence from the Company as to its issues with post over a number of years, as well as an explanation regarding its failure to respond to telephone messages and emails from tPR, were central rebutting the presumption. The decision will be of interest to practitioners in the pensions regulatory field, but also to practitioners dealing with issues around service and the rebuttable presumption regarding service by post in section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (IA 1978). Written by Elizabeth Grace, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.

Employment analysis: Sue Sleeman, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, explains that the Employment Tribunal case of Furlong v The Chief Constable of Cheshire Police is, so far as we know, the first time that an employer has sought to defend a discrimination claim by relying on provisions in the Equality Act 2010 that permit preference to be given to candidates who have ‘protected characteristics’ (eg women, LGBT, black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) candidates or those with a disability) in recruitment or promotion.

Also known as the employer's representative or project manager. In traditional contracts, this role is often fulfilled by the architect or contract administrator but under some design and build contracts, an employer's agent is appointed to act on behalf of the employer (referred to as a Project manager in the NEC3/NEC4 suite) to carry out contract administration and/or certification duties.

This Practice Note examines the circumstances in which an employer may make a contractual counterclaim against an employee in relation to a claim by the employee for breach of contract, under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 (the Order), SI 1994/1623. When an employer is permitted to make a contract claim (counterclaim) A respondent employer is entitled to make a contract claim (ie a contractual counterclaim) against a claimant if, and only if, that claimant has included a contract claim in their ET1 claim form which has been served on that respondent. A respondent employer is not permitted to make such a contractual counterclaim in response to an ET1 which does not include a contract claim. An employee is only to be treated as including a contract claim in their ET1 claim form if the claim: • must necessarily have been brought under the Order, ie it can only be brought as a breach of contract claim and not alternatively as a statutory claim, or • has unequivocally

The vicarious liability of employers for the acts or omissions of their employees.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The passing of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) was anticipated to have a profound impact on the way in which employer’s liability claims were litigated. The effect of ERRA 2013, s 69 was to remove civil liability for breaches of the variety of health and safety regulations which imposed strict liability on employers to employees injured in accidents at work. Since the passing of ERRA 2013, however, there has been debate as to what the actual effect of ERRA 2013, s 69 was on accidents occurring after 1 October 2013. Gareth McAloon of Ropewalk Chambers analyses the latest developments.

In a design and build contract, the ERs are a contractual document setting out what the employer wants the works to entail and how it wants them to be carried out. ERs may also be included in a traditional contract if the contractor is undertaking a portion of the design.

This is a Finance Act 2004 term referring to a scheme providing retirement and death benefits that was either non-approved prior to A-day or from A-day was or is a non-registered pension scheme. It is the current term for an unregistered (formerly unapproved) scheme, formerly FURBS, UURBS etc.

‘Employer-related investments’ are defined in legislation as: • shares or other securities issued by the employer or any person ‘connected with’ or an ‘associate of’ the employer • land which is occupied or used by, or subject to a lease in favour of, the employer (or any associated or connected person) • property (other than land) which is used for the purposes of any business carried out by the employer (or any associated or connected person) • loans to the employer (or any associated or connected person). This includes sums due and payable to the scheme trustees (or managers) which fall to be treated as loans under the PA 1995, s 40(3), and • other prescribed investments—for more information, see What are the prescribed investments? below

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO REGISTERED OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES As a general rule, subject to the specific governing provisions of their trust deed and rules, registered occupational pension schemes can make investments without restrictions to the scope of such investments. However, there are exceptions to the general rule. Perhaps the most important exceptions to the general rule are the restrictions imposed under section 40 of the Pensions Act 1995 (PA 1995) and the Occupational Pension Schemes Act (Investment) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3378 (the Investment Regulations) which restrict trustees’ ability to invest in employer-related investments. These restrictions, which are the subject of this Practice Note, seek to provide statutory backing for the general principle that trust funds should be divorced from the employer's assets in order to ensure a greater measure of security for scheme members. The Pensions Regulator has issued guidance on restrictions relating to employer-related investments. Note that small self-administered schemes (SSASs) are not subject to these restrictions—see: Which schemes are exempt? below. What are employer-related investments? Statutory definition ‘Employer-related investments’ are defined